Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
=New categories= *Category:Memory Alpha images (medical equipment). - 23:39, August 27, 2011 (UTC) *Category:Artificial lifeforms. - 19:41, August 28, 2011 (UTC) *Category:Musical groups. - 14:08, September 1, 2011 (UTC) =Suggested categories= In-universe categories Missions and expeditions parent I created Category:Missions and expeditions based on my rereading this, which had everyone actually agreeing that we should have the category, but not liking the name (myself in fact) or what category it should be under. I'm fine with the name as is now, and will do the work to change it if I misread that and we decide otherwise, but there wasn't a category decided to place this under, so we still need that. I did like the original suggestion of "Events", which could then cover Crossing, Fornax Disaster (categorized), Alien abduction, and other uncategorized pages, but since that failed the first time around, I'm open to suggestions. - 14:57, June 4, 2011 (UTC) :I like Events as well; I'm not sure what else you could use instead.--31dot 09:25, August 5, 2011 (UTC) Production POV categories Award categories We have categroies for Category:Academy Award winners and Category:Academy Award nominees, Category:Emmy Award winners and Category:Emmy Award nominees, and Category:Saturn Award winners and Category:Saturn Award nominees. To complete the list we also should have Category:Screen Actors Guild Award winners and Category:Taurus World Stunt Award nominees. Maybe I am missing one more, see this list. – Tom 06:52, May 17, 2010 (UTC) :Support. - 06:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC) ::Come up with a full list, and it shouldn't be a problem I don't think. -- sulfur 15:37, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :So, would Star Trek be listed in the "Screen Actors Guild Award winners" category, or all the individual series pages? I'm not sure how to place the series at whole in there. Was that award a honorary one, or do series win like that all the time? - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 03:57, September 16, 2011 (UTC) :::I also approve of such a category (at least, in principal). --Defiant 04:38, September 16, 2011 (UTC) Ok, here are the missing categories, so far: * Category:ACE Eddie Award nominees * Category:ADG Excellence in Production Design Award nominees * Category:ADG Excellence in Production Design Award winners * Category:ALMA Award nominees * Category:ALMA Award winners * Category:ASC Award nominees * Category:ASCAP Film and Television Music Award winners * Category:BAFTA Award nominees * Category:C.A.S. Award nominees * Category:C.A.S. Award winners * Category:Grammy Award nominees * Category:Hugo Award nominees * Category:Hugo Award winners * Category:International Monitor Award winners * Category:MTV Movie Award nominees * Category:The NAACP Image Award nominees * Category:Satellite Award nominees * Category:Satellite Award winners * Category:Screen Actors Guild Award winners * Category:Taurus World Stunt Award nominees * Category:Writers Guild of America Award nominees * Category:Writers Guild of America Award winners I only thought to include these categories to people, maybe also companies but not to specific episodes or the series. These categories could be subcategories to Category:Award nominees and Category:Award winners. Tom 18:23, October 13, 2011 (UTC) ::I prefer a single "Awards" category, then the rest laid out in the same style that we have now for the various award categories (ie, Awards->X nominees->X winners). The overall awards page (and the redirects that we have) can go into that top level "Awards" category. I'm not sure that we need "Award nominees" and "Award winners" as extra categories. -- sulfur 18:36, October 13, 2011 (UTC) Production material Per the discussion here. - 07:56, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :Oppose, at least for the purpose that has been discussed initially on that page. It is still totally unclear to me how a technique (an article about how images are used as a visual effect to convey "landscape") could sensibly be considered a material (some specific physical object). Please explain, and give examples of articles that should (and shouldn't) be categorized in this category. -- Cid Highwind 08:29, October 13, 2011 (UTC) CGI, Feinberger, Mees panel, Okudagram, and Category:Studio models should be categorized under this since this category should cover "production material" and the techniques used to create them if that page also covers the particular examples of said technique. I leave it to you Cid to point out some examples where that might be confusing and or describes an article that shouldn't be included, based on the stated purpose. - 08:47, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :Studio model; Matte painting - both not to be categorized under this category, because they are about production techniques, not specific materials. The latter one is borderline because it's incomplete, but should either become a technique article or, after a rename, a list of matte paintings. Also, in extension, "Oppose" to any thoughts about creating an effects category as a subcategory to this. That just doesn't work, an effect is not a material. In that regard, adding CGI, an article about another technique, here is questionable, too. -- Cid Highwind 09:04, October 13, 2011 (UTC) I believe that's just splitting hairs there Cid, since studio model is under the category which is mainly material except for the one article. The same could be said of matte painting, since if we need separate articles for individual paintings, it will be much like the studio models. Splitting off lists of the material shouldn't exclude the parent either, since that's done for page navigation and readability mostly. As for CGI, the files are material. That said, if you want a technique category, I'm game, but I think studio model makes more sense next to the models themselves than clip show. - 09:17, October 13, 2011 (UTC) ::The article CGI includes info about the generic process of creating CGI, as well as a list of specific examples. I don't see why matte painting should be treated differently. IMHO, it should be kept to the bare minimums of the precise examples, with links to each case in which they were used, giving the reader more info (for instance, the info about the Genesis cave paintings links to the article about Genesis cave, where there should be more info about the creation of the cave, including the paintings). If a list is favored for the minimalism, rather than small notes, I'd agree to that. --Defiant 09:31, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :::I see some merit in Cid's arguments, however as technique always results in material, establishing a clear defined border may be quite difficult...Wouldn't we avoid this by calling the proposed category "Production techniques and material" ?--Sennim 10:22, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :I'm definitely open to a different name for this category (although the new suggestion is a little "unwieldy"). It might help if we started by defining the descriptive text that will eventually end up on the category page. What is it supposed to be? -- Cid Highwind 10:25, October 13, 2011 (UTC) Running with Sennim's suggestion, I'd go with "Production techniques and the material associated with them." as opposed to "Production material and the techniques used to create them." which would be for a category called "Production material and techniques". The original suggestion, based on us having more pure "material" articles than "technique" ones, would have been something similar to the second option, for the same reason that Sennim already mentioned. - 11:40, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :::Well, that has been my intent in making my suggestion, to put technique before material to indicate the "logical" order, which make me like Duke's first option; perhaps even a little more tersely formulated as "Production techniques and associated materials" (possibly: On-screen production techniques and associated materials"), which to me at least sounds pretty descriptive and has IMO an advantage to serve as a "catch-all" and as a solid starting point to develop a category tree in the future, when circumstances so dictate...Sennim 14:22, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :I'm still not convinced of putting all of that into one category. The "and" in the suggested new title and the description is a good indicator of something being wrong here. To explain, consider what will happen if we get much more articles in this category. The obvious action would be to split into one category for "techniques" and another one for "materials". In that case, will "techniques&materials" still be the best title for a common supercategory? If we had Category:Apples and Category:Oranges, would a good supercategory be called Category:Apples_and_Oranges? Surely not, we'd go for something like Category:Fruit instead. So, what would be a good supercategory title that catches both techniques and materials? And if we can't find one, or if the titles we do find all sound forced - why desperately try putting everything that has been suggested into a single category? -- Cid Highwind 09:56, October 14, 2011 (UTC) The answer is simple, a Production super-cat would be the best choice then, but that would also cover several other categories already in Category:Star Trek, and is getting a bit far afield from one category suggestion. I would ask if you actually foresee enough articles between "techniques" and "materials", even though there is a overlap between the two right now, for there to be a need to split the purposed category without there still being hybrid articles that cover both, or is this all just academic? If the latter, I'm sure that's a bridge we can cross when it happens, though I'm not convinced that we will ever need to. - 10:10, October 14, 2011 (UTC) :No, I don't think that finding the best-possible categorization for any article is "academic" - that's why we're having this page in the first place. It's also not "just splitting hairs" - both comments seem to imply that I just joined this discussion so that I can spend some time although the suggested categorization is, in fact, "objectively good enough" already. I suggest we stop that personal tangent, as it will lead nowhere. :Now that Category:Star Trek has been mentioned, that one has been created with the intent to serve as a "production information category, for all "out of universe" POV articles about the franchise". Whatever categorization we discuss here, it should be a subcategory of that one anyway - so, if it makes more sense to create a subcategory like "Production" there and be done with categorizing the articles we talk about here at the moment (even if that means re-categorizing other Category:Star_Trek articles as well), why not attempt that? -- Cid Highwind 10:44, October 14, 2011 (UTC) Maintenance categories